Choi v University of Technology Sydney
Case
•
[2017] NSWCATAD 198
•21 June 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Choi v University of Technology Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 198
[2017] NSWCATAD 198
21 June 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Choi v University of Technology Sydney, the applicant, Ms Choi, sought internal review and then administrative review of the University's decision to impose a processing charge for her request under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The dispute was brought before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales. The central issues for the Tribunal were whether Ms Choi's application for internal review was lodged within the required timeframe and whether she had a reasonable excuse for the delay in applying for administrative review.
The Tribunal first examined whether Ms Choi's application for internal review was timely, focusing on the statutory phrase "given to" as used in the Act. It concluded that the notice attached to an email received by Ms Choi was considered "given to" her, thereby deeming her internal review application as timely. However, the Tribunal found that Ms Choi's subsequent application for administrative review was made beyond the statutory deadline, and she did not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay. This determination was pivotal in dismissing her application for an extension of time.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both the application for an extension of time and the application for administrative review. The reasoning was grounded in the statutory requirements of the Act, specifically the timelines for internal and external review, and the necessity of a reasonable excuse for any delays in compliance with these timelines. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the University's decision, finding that Ms Choi's applications were not within the prescribed timeframes and that no reasonable excuse was provided for the delay in her administrative review application.
The Tribunal first examined whether Ms Choi's application for internal review was timely, focusing on the statutory phrase "given to" as used in the Act. It concluded that the notice attached to an email received by Ms Choi was considered "given to" her, thereby deeming her internal review application as timely. However, the Tribunal found that Ms Choi's subsequent application for administrative review was made beyond the statutory deadline, and she did not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay. This determination was pivotal in dismissing her application for an extension of time.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both the application for an extension of time and the application for administrative review. The reasoning was grounded in the statutory requirements of the Act, specifically the timelines for internal and external review, and the necessity of a reasonable excuse for any delays in compliance with these timelines. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the University's decision, finding that Ms Choi's applications were not within the prescribed timeframes and that no reasonable excuse was provided for the delay in her administrative review application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Reasonable Excuse
-
Administrative Review
-
Statutory Interpretation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Young v Conservator of Flora and Fauna (Administrative Review) [2024] ACAT 65
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Choi v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force
[2020] NSWCATAD 95
Choi v NSW Department of Justice
[2019] NSWCATAD 248
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
3